Israel’s Missed Signals: The Intelligence Gap That Enabled a Tragedy

TEL AVIV — The moment the red alert broke across Tel Aviv, residents instinctively moved to shelters, their phones buzzing “Tzeva Adom, Red Alert,” as 5 rockets screamed across the night sky of Tel Aviv, as sirens wailed once again, interrupting their family time. The shockwaves of the aftermath of October 7 reverberated through the city, sending a grim reminder of the unrelenting threats Israel faces daily. Yet, on October 7th, as rockets rained down and Hamas fighters launched an unprecedented attack that resulted in over 1,400 casualties—many among them children and young adults—the warning systems and the intelligence apparatus that underpins them failed to see it coming.

Amid this chaos, Rami Irga, the former Chief of Mossad’s Missing in Action unit, sat calmly at the podium. His composed demeanor stood in stark contrast to the tumult outside, embodying a quiet fearlessness. His presence reflected a resilience forged through centuries of adversity and triumph, encapsulating the strength of one man and symbolizing Israel's enduring fortitude in the face of relentless trials that have shaped the collective identity of the Jewish people.

For Irga, the attack underscored a failure he had long cautioned against—an over-reliance on advanced technology at the expense of traditional human intelligence. “How did Israel find themselves surprised on October 7th?” he asked, pointing to a painful irony. Mossad, a global leader in intelligence gathering, supported by some of the most sophisticated counterterrorism technology in the world, was blindsided by Hamas' deadly plan.

“The moment things become instant, in this case technology giving immediate results…has caused us to abandon ourselves,” Irga said. He explained that over-dependence on instant technological solutions fosters a dangerous complacency. “Israel’s technology is very advanced. We knew where and what Hamas was doing, but what Israel did not know was what was going on in the minds of Hamas.”

According to Irga, Mossad's reliance on technology-driven findings came at a cost. The agency neglected nuanced and critical insights that only human intelligence tools, such as covert operatives, could provide. This failure to deeply understand Hamas' intent, despite Israel's unparalleled surveillance tools, allowed the jihadist group to conduct its devastating October 7th attack, murdering innocent civilians.

For Irga, the failure reflects a deeper issue—an imbalance in Israel’s approach to intelligence gathering. While technology offers unparalleled precision, it is limited by its inability to interpret the complexities of human intent. “The moment things become instant,” Irga emphasized, “we lose our ability to see beyond what is immediate.”

The Overlooked Human Factor

Despite its unparalleled technological arsenal, Israel has placed less emphasis on boots-on-the-ground intelligence, according to Irga. Over decades, Mossad’s reliance on data analysis, cyber tools, and automated systems sidelined critical human intelligence efforts—particularly those needed to infiltrate and closely observe adversaries' intentions.

This reliance created blind spots. Vital clues about Hamas’ escalating militancy, its careful planning, and its genocidal motivations went undetected.

This intelligence vulnerability represents an unsettling echo of past failures. General Eli Zeira, the head of Israel’s military intelligence during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, immortalized this very issue with a parable. He described the “red parrot” that screams warnings of impending danger and the “blue parrot” that reassures there is none. Most days, the blue parrot is right, he said, until the day disaster strikes. The challenge, he argued, is knowing which parrot to trust—and acting on that judgment.

During the Yom Kippur War, Israel failed to correctly assess Egypt’s subtle preparations for an attack, believing the armistice agreement signed in 1949, had forestalled conflict. Fifty years later, that lesson has resurfaced. Irga contends that reliance on data-driven intelligence dulled officials’ ability to interpret adversarial intent.

“Being reliant on fast-technology,” Irga warned, “we abandon ourselves.” Is it likely than, without on-the-ground operatives interacting with and observing adversaries in their own circles, intentions remain opaque, leaving Israel vulnerable to cataclysmic oversights?

Technology’s Limits and the Future of Intelligence

The October 7th tragedy raises questions not only about Mossad’s failure to act, but also about how intelligence gathering must evolve. Leaning too heavily on technology risks ignoring the complexities of human intent—something no algorithm can accurately assess. The digital tools used today can process vast quantities of data, flagging patterns and anomalies at extraordinary speed. However, as Irga argues, technology alone cannot predict human behavior with certainty, especially when adversaries deliberately hide their motives and actions.

Critics point out that while the warning signs were there, they went unnoticed or were dismissed. Analysts, comforted by the assurances of technology, may not have adequately weighed the "red parrot" of human intelligence—the on-the-ground alerts delivered by covert operatives. If traditional intelligence methods had been prioritized equally, Irga suggests, Mossad could have better interpreted Hamas’ shifting behavior and escalating rhetoric, acting before it was too late.

Still, abandoning technological tools entirely is not the solution. General Zeira’s parable remains instructive. Both the “red parrot” and the “blue parrot” must be heeded, balanced, and scrutinized through a disciplined lens that integrates human judgment with machine precision. Irga warns against shifting the pendulum too far in either direction, underscoring that both approaches are essential for comprehensive intelligence gathering.

“We knew what Hamas was doing,” Irga reiterated. “But we ignored what they were thinking.” This crucial gap between observation and comprehension is a failure that Israel cannot afford to repeat.

A Path Forward

The October 7th attack highlights the urgent need for Israel to recalibrate its approach to intelligence. Combating highly adaptive adversaries like Hamas requires blending technological sophistication with traditional spycraft. Human operatives, operating in adversary networks, can offer the kind of deep, qualitative insights that no machine can replicate.

What Irga and other experts maintain is clear: no amount of advanced technology can replace the insight gained from understanding the adversary’s psyche and intent. Israel must address its over-reliance on algorithms and data-driven systems while reinvesting in the human factor that once defined its intelligence prowess.

The price of failing to strike this balance is steep. For Israel, it was measured in lives lost, communities devastated, and trust eroded. The red alert is no longer just a siren—it is a call for change in a system that must evolve to better protect its people.